It’s 1000 playbacks, not 1000 unique listeners.
It’s 1000 playbacks, not 1000 unique listeners.
Until they do, password managers get you most of the way there, by letting you have a single password on your side, mapping to one password for each login. Bitwarden is great, and free.
It’s basically just a psyop by Charles Koch, trying to spread propaganda to land favourable policy changes for him and his kind.
Never trust anything the Cato Institute says, as a rule. It’s almost certainly garbage.
Any time.
To be clear, I don’t think this should be taken as a defense of Spotify. I just think that these misconceptions distract from more valid criticisms.
https://support.spotify.com/us/artists/article/royalties/
It’s net revenue split to rights holders according to the share of streams. If you have 1% of all streams on Spotify in a given time period, you get 0.7% of net revenue for that period.
How the rights holders distribute the money onward to the artists is not exactly transparent though.
Again, not true - the royalty payments are based on revenue, not profit.
To understand how absurd the claim that royalty payments are based on profits is, consider that Spotify has had a grand total of two profitable quarters throughout its whole existence - are you seriously claiming that no artist ever got paid outside those two quarters?
…I mean, 30% of the savings go to Spotify, so some part of it will indeed go to stock buybacks and executive salaries. Some of it will go to regular employee salaries, and some of it will go to pay for technical infrastructure, and some of it will go to pay for offices. Some of it will be spent on marketing, even.
70% of it will go to rights holders, though.
70% of profits would be miniscule, but the figure is not true so you can safely disregard everything they said.
In effect, yes. Given that ~70% of revenue goes to rights holders, making the amount of revenue bigger by not paying 30% of subscriptions to Google, the savings are passed on to rights holders.
That’s patently false, it’s 70% of revenue that goes to rights holders.
Seriously, why lie like this?
To be clear, this is the government-owned postal service that does the deliveries of these license plates. They have other privileges on account of being the official postal service.
There are other legal consequences to not bargaining and signing a union contract in Sweden, this is quite simply the way the Swedish labour market works.
Other companies have been de-facto banned from the Swedish market before by refusing to bargain in the past (Toys’R’Us for example), I don’t see why Tesla’s case would be any different. Were I to be a judge to receive this case, I would question why Tesla would refuse to do something so mundane and universally expected as to bargain with the unions. Upon not receiving a good reason as to not do it, I would then promptly throw that case into the trash where it belongs.
Makes you tear up a little with pride, doesn’t it.
While I can only speculate on this, if I had to guess I would say that the company selling the cars must sell them with the plates already attached. As such, you can refuse to deliver mail to Tesla addresses.
I could afford buying multiple in cash each year.
Why would I ever do something so dumb, though?
Oh, nice! Victim blaming!
If you believe that pedestrians should always be prioritized then you should be advocating for a complete ban on cars
Welcome aboard, sailor.
Welcome to the Swedish labour market. Companies have tried and failed before to resist union negotiations.
They literally can’t sell cars any more in Sweden, on account of the postal service having a sympathy strike and no longer delivering registration plates to them. Using the postal service is the only legal means of obtaining registration plates, and without them it’s not permitted to sell a car.
So either they rethink or they leave the Swedish market entirely.
Billionaires like to talk a lot about different kinds of ideologies, but at the end of the day, they all have the same ideology - Money. Put them in a situation where they clearly are going to make less without signing, and the signature will all of a sudden not be an impossibility any more.
Quite the opposite, stock prices generally soar after layoffs.
The severance packages show up as a line item on the quarterly report though, so if you can have some people quit then that can also be a good thing in the eyes of the executives.
The whole thing leaves a bad taste in your mouth for sure.